Gov. Dean & Sen. Reid: Republicans Silence Your Representatives

[paineinthearse]

Received by email:



Breaking News: Republicans Silence Your Representatives
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:14:45 -0500

Dear (me),

Sometimes partisan politics gets overheated -- I know that as well as anyone. But when one party controls all three branches of government, and then seeks to change the fundamental principles and rules of our democracy, we need to talk about it soberly and seriously.

The Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress -- they want to give George Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.

Today Harry Reid and the Democratic Senators asked us, the American people, to help them preserve the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

We have to act. Sign this petition, which we will deliver to every U.S. Senator, asking them to protect the right to free speech in the Senate. If they don't, it is not only their voice that will be silenced -- it will be ours:

http://www.democrats.org/freespeech

Here are the facts: George Bush has appointed judges to lifetime positions at a better rate than any president in nearly three decades. More than 95% of his nominees have been approved. Only ten nominees have been refused -- all because they are unqualified and out of the mainstream.

But that's not enough. And on this issue, as on Social Security, it is becoming more and more obvious to everyone that the Republican leadership is out of touch with reality.

More Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history. And that same day, across the country, the Democratic candidates for Senate received over 4 million more votes than Republicans.

Americans did not endorse the fringe agenda to dismantle Social Security. And they did not endorse dismantling the system of checks and balances that have served our country for over 200 years.

Please tell your Senator to stand up for free speech:

http://www.democrats.org/freespeech

This is not a partisan issue -- it is an American issue. And we all must act together in order to protect our democracy.

Thank you.



Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

[paineinthearse]

1. Democratic Leader Harry Reid's Letter to Bill Frist

Harry Reid and the Democratic Caucus: Preserving Checks and Balances
Today, we say to the American people: if you believe in liberty and in limited government, set aside your partisan views and oppose this arrogant abuse of power.

http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/press/05/2005315B18.html

Democratic Leader Harry Reid's Letter to Bill Frist
March 15, 2005

March 15, 2005

Dear Majority Leader Frist:

During President Bush's first four years in office, the Senate confirmed 204 judicial nominees and withheld its consent to only 10 nominations, a confirmation rate of over 95%. Last year the federal court vacancy rate reached its lowest level in 15 years. Nonetheless, in recent press reports you have threatened to use extraordinary parliamentary tactics allowing the Republican majority to rubberstamp the handful of nominees already rejected and all future Bush nominees.

On behalf of every Democratic Senator, I urge you and your colleagues to reconsider this course of action, which would remove one of the constitutional checks and balances that has served our country so well for over two centuries. I also want to describe the likely effect of this so-called "nuclear option" on the operation of the Senate.

The role of the Senate in the confirmation of presidential nominees is a central element of our democracy. The Framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances to limit the power of each branch of government, and in that way to protect the rights of the American people. The Senate's review of judicial nominees is especially important because federal judges are the only government officials to receive lifetime appointments. These men and women will serve on the federal bench for decades, making far-reaching decisions that affect all Americans.

Every citizen has an enormous stake in this debate. Federal judges apply the laws that Congress passes to protect the environment, guard against discrimination and punish criminals. They give life to the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, the free exercise of religion and other vital constitutional rights. The Senate's role in the confirmation of judges is as important as any of our duties.

The power to confirm judges includes the right to use well-established Senate rules to reject nominees. No one has seriously doubted that right in over 200 years, and Senators have exercised it in recent times. Of course that right should be exercised responsibly -- while Republicans are concerned about the treatment of President Bush's judicial nominees, Democrats were concerned about the Senate's treatment of President Clinton's judicial nominees, more than 60 of whom were denied a vote by the full Senate.

I am willing to work with you to improve the procedures by which the President seeks the advice of Senators with regard to nominations and the procedures by which the Senate considers whether to grant its consent, consistent with constitutional checks and balances. But to alter these procedures unilaterally would be an unprecedented abuse of power. The Senate should not become like the House of Representatives, where the majority manipulates the rules to accommodate its momentary needs.

-2-

Democrats in the Senate may be in the minority, but we represent millions of American citizens. The nuclear option would deny these Americans their rightful voice in the governance of the nation. Moreover, we will not always be in the minority. The nuclear option would trample on the rights of whichever group of Americans -- Republicans or Democrats -- happen to be represented by the Senate minority at any given time.

Listen to the words of two of our great Senate Leaders: Former Republican Leader Howard Baker wrote in 1993 that limiting the right to extended debate "would topple one of the pillars of American Democracy: the protection of minority rights from majority rule. The Senate is the only body in the federal government where these minority rights are fully and specifically protected." And half a century earlier, Democratic Leader and later President Lyndon Johnson said: "In this country, a majority may govern but it does not rule. The genius of our constitutional and representative government is the multitude of safeguards provided to protect minority interests."

The Senate conducts most of its business by cooperation and consent. The minority provides that consent with the expectation that the courtesies it extends to the majority will be met with respect for minority rights. And no Senate right is more fundamental than the right to debate. Should the majority choose to break the rules that give us that right, the majority should not expect to receive cooperation from the minority in the conduct of Senate business.

Of course Democrats would never block legislation vital to our troops or other national security interests, and we will help ensure that critical government services continue to function for the American people. Beyond that very limited scope, however, we will be reluctant to enter into any consent agreement that facilitates Senate activities, even on routine matters. Just this year we passed the class action and bankruptcy bills under procedures negotiated in good faith between the majority and the minority. We would decline to provide such cooperation in the future if you implement the nuclear option.

There is a better way. Working together, I believe we can discharge the Senate's constitutional duty to consider judicial nominees in a fair and sensible manner. If you abandon the nuclear option, I can assure you that Senate Democrats will cooperate with you to consider legislation and nominations. We will exercise our procedural rights in a responsible fashion, cognizant of the President's prerogatives. We will do our part to preserve the bipartisanship that defines the Senate and that serves the nation so well.

Sincerely,

HARRY REID Democratic Leader

[mikelewis]

8. No way

"Working together, I believe we can discharge the Senate's constitutional duty to consider judicial nominees in a fair and sensible manner. If you abandon the nuclear option, I can assure you that Senate Democrats will cooperate with you to consider legislation and nominations. We will exercise our procedural rights in a responsible fashion, cognizant of the President's prerogatives. We will do our part to preserve the bipartisanship that defines the Senate and that serves the nation so well."

This is bullshit. Am I reading this right? "If you don't bully us around we will do what you want." Or am I just overreacting.

[Laurab]

9. I think you're overreacting

The Dems have said they will basically shut down the government if the rethugs do what they've threatened to do, and get rid of the "nuclear option", which is the minority party's only hope when it comes to important votes like Supreme Court nominees. The "nuclear option" (filibuster), is used rarely by the minority party, and only for very important things (ie lifetime Supreme Court seats).

The rethugs are threatening to do away with the "nuclear option", which would essentially lead to clear sailing for any whacked out right wing neocon nut job Supreme Court appointee to win appointment, simply because the rethugs are the majority.

Reid is saying that if they take away that option, it will be difficult to get ANYTHING done in the senate. If they don't take away that option, they will work together, as they are SUPPOSED to do. That's basically all he's saying. Bully us, and you can forget working together on ANYTHING, to put it in simpler terms. At least that's my take on it.

If the rethugs do away with the filibuster, it's goodbye democracy (the little we have left), and hello, one party for good. The dems have to fight back with anything and everything they have.

[marcologico]

10. I think you nailed it:

"Just this year we passed the class action and bankruptcy bills under procedures negotiated in good faith between the majority and the minority. We would decline to provide such cooperation in the future if you implement the nuclear option."

translation: please don't hit us after we just gave you all our lunch money, again!

[paineinthearse]

2. Sen. Reid's speech: Preserving Checks and Balances

http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/press/05/2005315840.html

Preserving Checks and Balances
March 15, 2005


Remarks by Senator Harry Reid Preserving Checks and Balances U.S. Capitol Steps Tuesday, March 15, 2005

On a late September day in 1787, the Constitutional Convention finished its work. As Benjamin Franklin walked down the steps of Independence Hall, a Philadelphia woman named Elizabeth Powell stopped him and asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got: a republic or a monarchy?"

He responded, "A republic. If you can keep it."

For more than two centuries, we have kept our republic because Americans have understood that our liberty is protected by our laws and by a government of limited powers.

Our Constitution provides for checks and balances so that no one person in power -- so that no one political party -- can hold total control over the course of our nation.

But now, in order to break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch, President Bush and the Republican leadership want to eliminate a two-hundred-year-old American rule saying that every member of the Senate can rise to say their piece and speak on behalf of the people that sent them here.

The fact is that this President has a better record of having his judicial nominees approved than any President in the past twenty-five years. Only ten of 214 nominations have been turned down.

So it is clear that this attempt to strip away these important checks and balances is not about judges. It is about the desire for absolute power.

But our nation's basic rules are there for the moments when the eyes of the powerful grow large and hungry; when their willfulness makes them determined to do whatever it takes to win, and prevail at whatever the cost.

Presidents and parties have grown drunk with power before. Two Presidents of my own party -- Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt -- began their second terms of office with majorities in Congress and then tried to change the rules governing judges so that they could stack the court with those who would do their bidding. They were wrong to try to change our basic American rules -- and Americans, and Senators of both parties, stood up to tell them so.

Today, another attempt is being considered to rewrite the rules so that those in power can get their way.

It would mean that the U.S. Senate becomes merely a rubber stamp for the Executive Branch.

It would mean that one political party -- be it Republicans today or Democrats tomorrow -- gets to have all the say.

It would mean that one man, sitting in the White House, has the practical ability to personally hand out lifetime jobs to judges whose rulings can last forever.

That's not how America works.

Here, in America, the people rule -- and all the people have a voice

We pledge allegiance to "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all." Not liberty and justice for whoever may be in the majority of the moment. Liberty and justice for all. In America, everyone gets their say and their due.

Today, we say to the American people: if you believe in liberty and in limited government, set aside your partisan views and oppose this arrogant abuse of power.

Our freedom as a people was purchased by soldiers and Senators, by those who fell for our country and those who rose to speak for it, even when they stood alone.

The courage of patriots has given us a republic. Now, it is our task -- and our test -- to show that we can keep it.

===========

Watch the speech: http://democrats.senate.gov/cgi-bin/nph-dpc2ra.pl?proto=http&file=/~dpc/av/reid/reid031505.rm

[marcologico]

3. Neither of them actually mention the measure or the rule it would change.

Real helpful.

[adwon]

4. I noticed that too

My guess is that it involves Rule 22, but clarification would be nice.

[paineinthearse]

5. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[adwon]

6. Thanks

:hi:

[paineinthearse]

7. Senate rules

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/menu.htm

Index:

I - Appointment of a Senator to the Chair

II - Presentation of credentials and questions of privilege

III - Oaths

IV - Commencement of daily sessions

V - Suspension and amendment of the rules

VI - Quorum - absent Senators may be sent for

VII - Morning business

VIII - Order of business

IX - Messages

X - Special orders

XI - Papers - withdrawal, printing, reading of, and reference

XII - Voting procedure

XIII - Reconsideration

XIV - Bills, joint resolutions, resolutions, and preambles thereto

XV - Amendments and motions

XVI - Appropriations and amendments to general appropriation bills

XVII - Reference to committees; motions to discharge; reports of committees; and hearings available

XVIII - Business continued from session to session

XIX - Debate

XX - Questions of order

XXI - Session with closed doors

XXII - Precedence of motions

XXIII - Privilege of the floor

XXIV - Appointment of committees

XXV - Standing committees

XXVI - Committee procedure

XXVII - Committee staff

XXVIII - Conference committees; reports; open meetings

XXIX - Executive sessions

XXX - Executive session - proceedings on treaties

XXXI - Executive session - proceedings on nominations

XXXII - The President furnished with copies of records of executive sessions

XXXIII - Senate Chamber - Senate wing of the Capitol

XXXIV - Public financial disclosure

XXXV - Gifts

XXXVI - Outside earned income

XXXVII - Conflict of interest

XXXVIII - Prohibition of unofficial office accounts

XXXIX - Foreign travel

XL- Franking privilege and radio and television studios

XLI - Political fund activity; definitions

XLII - Employment practices

XLIII - Representation by Members

Complete rules in text: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/standingrules.txt

[SF Bay Area Dem]

11. GO Reid!!!!

Does anyone think Daschle would have done this? NOT! He allowed himself to be bent over by Limbaugh in 2002/2003 --- and took it.

[paineinthearse]

12. Sign the petition - http://www.democrats.org/freespeech

http://www.democrats.org/freespeech